On 2 Mar 2015, at 02:18, David Lamparter <[email protected]> wrote:
> NB: I'm not against SHM, but I do think SHM is more difficult to get > right, and it's not an automatic performance win. I did some thinking > about a shared memory RCU-based replacement for ZAPI, but never had the > time to try that. It probably *does* help moving Quagga towards > supporting multiple threads in the individual daemons. How difficult is it to do SHM portably? That could be the decider. Michael _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
